Github user babokim commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/tajo/pull/37#discussion_r14073117
--- Diff: tajo-core/src/main/java/org/apache/tajo/worker/Task.java ---
@@ -702,15 +706,24 @@ public void run() {
try {
if (context.isPorgressChanged()) {
- masterStub.statusUpdate(null, getReport(),
NullCallback.get());
+ masterStub.statusUpdate(errorControllers[0], getReport(),
NullCallback.get());
} else {
- masterStub.ping(null, taskId.getProto(),
NullCallback.get());
+ masterStub.ping(errorControllers[1], taskId.getProto(),
NullCallback.get());
+ }
+ for (int i = 0; i < errorControllers.length; i++) {
+ if (errorControllers[i].failed()) {
+ String errorText = errorControllers[i].errorText();
+ throw new IOException(errorText);
+ }
}
} catch (Throwable t) {
LOG.error(t.getMessage(), t);
- remainingRetries -=1;
+ if (t.getMessage() != null &&
t.getMessage().indexOf("java.nio.channels.ClosedChannelException") >= 0) {
--- End diff --
I agree that we need a better way to handle RPC exception. I think it is
better to deal with handling RPC exception in the new issue.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [email protected] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
